Cite that this was specifically intended as a WWII memorial? The impression I had was that it was just going to be a general floating navy museum.
Anyhow, there’s a HUGE difference bewteen “WWII vets aren’t worth a monument because Bush sucks” and “right now, in the current situation, with the war in Iraq, and with the current military gay policy, we choose not to have this monument/museum in our city, due to its clear military nature”. I don’t happen to AGREE with that decision, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near the clear-cut anti-veteran message you’re making it out to be.
One more thing… (sorry for the repeated posts, but this is a very interesting topic):
For those of us (including me) who are not gay men… what right do we have to judge how gay people feel about the military? I mean, here’s an organization that is INTEGRAL to the US, one which is canonized and celebrated for its role throughout US history, an organization whose ex-members are celebrated above all others as patriots and good Americans, an organization which gets billions of dollars taxpayer money which we all must contribute, and this organization’s officially sanctioned viewpoint towards you (the gay man) is that you’re an unworthy pervert who would only be worthy to join our exalted ranks if you promised not to be gay or even talk about being gay for your entire term of service. (An attitude which, by the way, is by FAR the most tolerant that it’s ever been, historically.) And gay men are supposed to just laugh that off and say “yay military! yay veterans! yay navy! yay Iowa!”. And if they don’t, it is THEY who are DELIVERING the slap in the face?
It’s a World War II ship, is it not? If it is to be used as a museum ship do you think that it will be displayed in the context of WWII? Of course it will.
Certainly those are reasonable positions. However, I don’t see where the Iowa fits into this objection.
The ship was to be a museum. Typically these museums commemorate the Navy’s role in national defense, showcase the technology present on the ship, and honor the service of her crew and the service of other veterans.
The ship had fought in WWII and Korea, both wars where the conduct of the United States was generally honorable, and where our failure to fight would have brought extreme misery to far more people. In the case of the Iowa, there would have been another commemoration, remembering those 47 sailors who died in the turret explosion.
The ship has nothing, nothing at all, to do with the current conflict. Not being an active ship, it also has squat to do any more with current military policy toward gays.
The supervisors, by rejecting the ship, had no impact on current Naval operations at all. However, they rejected a museum dedicated to these naval veterans, especially those 47 who died in the turret.
This commemoration isn’t welcome in San Francisco, at least officially.
The inability of the supervisors to separate these issues is what is insulting to me. What they are saying is that this monument cannot be supported because the military today is misguided and evil. It’s elevating current protest above an honor that is appropriate, when there really should be a time and place for both.
Incidentally, this attitude has a lot of liberals on this board troubled. I’m not the only one by far to have criticized this action.
What I’m pitting is people who have their priorities so twisted. That doesn’t include all liberals, and I’ve said so from the start. It doesn’t include Dianne Feinstein. It doesn’t include those board members who voted for the museum. It doesn’t include liberals in Pittsburgh, Fall River, Baltimore or Norfolk who have brought in museum ships without controversy.
It does, however, include those eight politicians I named, and those that pressed them for this decision.
Speaking of only the U.S. military, of course. Because the Spartans had a different take on it.
Hey, I’m a queer San Franciscan, and I can easily see a compromise: Take the Iowa, put it up, & make sure that The Alexander Hamilton American Legion Post gets a chunk of the exhibition to explore the military’s screwed up and abhorrent position regarding gay men & lesbians throughout history. Shoot, even in the context of WWII it makes sense-- gay men discharged dishonorably for being homosexual ended up in San Francisco and decided to stay there rather than have to deal with even more shit from their hometown.
BTW, plopping it over in the mud flats of the Great Mojave near Victorville would be a tad difficult since the Mojave River heads east and empties into Death Valley. Then again, a few dozen helicoptors, maybe we could just airlift it in. 
I have no position on whether or not they are worthy. My immediate inclination is to say, “yes, of course they’re worthy.” But I’d be hard-pressed to think of any veteran who isn’t. I respect and support all those who fight for our country…but, I must admit, not equally. You bring up some good examples. Taking it further, what of the WWII vets who voted for Bush? Do their voting records in any way mitigate their bravery of 50 years ago? My opinion would be that it doesn’t. Here’s what I’m saying:
Billy from Iowa goes to war in 2003. He votes for Bush in 2004. He dies in 2005. Am I happy he died? No! Did he get what he deserved? Of course not. Is he as much of a hero as any other war veteran? I’m not sure the answer is “yes.” But I am sure that those who say the answer is always yes are falsely borrowing from a legacy that is not their own. And when his family or friends lash out at me for denigrating his memory by opposing the war (and his opinion of it), while I understand their grief, I want to ask them how I am denigrating his memory by wishing the conflict that killed him had never been forced upon us?
But. When they lash out at me for denigrating ALL US veterans of ALL foreign wars, I simply shake my head. I don’t buy into the idea that all veterans are part of the same sacred brotherhood that must be revered no matter what, that to condemn the choices of some veterans is to condemn them all. I reject that idea. Just because the US enters into a war doesn’t automatically elevate it into the pantheon of All Sacred Struggles Against Evil.
Accordingly, I reject the idea that the refusal to harbor the Iowa in SF is a slap in the face of WWII veterans. We live here now, not fifty years ago. History has judged the men and women of WWII, and has judged them well. If they think their legacy is being shat upon by a few liberals in SF, that’s really their problem. The veterans of that war are among the most storied, honored, memorialized, and “monumented” in the history of the world. I’m sorry if they feel like we’ve cheated them out of one more monument, but I refuse to qualify my opinion of the current administration and the current war because some people think the two wars are somehow connected.
Speaking personally, I would have absolutely no problem with that.
There aren’t too many memorials to the 47 sailors who died in the turret explosion. And the ship would be the natural place for the main one.
Does the here and now justify rejecting the chance to honor them?
Is there any evidence at all that the Iowa’s exhibits will make any mention of the turret explosion? As nice as the idea sounds, it doesn’t seem very likely to me.
Yes. When so many are dying for no good reason, yes. When so many are denied the simple opportunity to serve because they’re gay, yes.
Besides, exactly how many memorials do they need to be appropriately honored? Is there a number we’re looking for that we haven’t met? To me, you could put 100 such ships in every US port; the tribute would still pale in comparison to the judgment of history. You just just don’t get any better than that. History is done; the here and now are all we have, and we have every right to say something about it before it becomes history.
Case in point: the Iowa was active during the Korean War, but notice we’re not talking about that war. Isn’t making the ship a WWII monument a slap in the face to Korean War vets?
It’s a war vessel. It’s as much a symbol of the military as it is a symbol of any war in particular.
Hey, that’s just a minor detail…
mojave66, why do you hate the high desert of America? 
Maybe San Franciscans are still pissed off about the military riot that occurred in San Francisco at the end of WWII? (And yes, I know the majority were not “veterans.” I just found this tidbit interesting.)
Anyway, I don’t think many people disagree with the fact that the reasons given for rejecting the ship were irrelevant and/or weak. I do think it’s interesting how Mr. Moto has tap-danced his way from “Fuck You, San Francisco” to “Oh, I meant fuck the eight people who voted against the ship and the people who support them.” Did they teach you those maneuvers in the military?
Spare me. There aren’t too many other cities in America where the politicians who delivered this insult, be they Republican, Democrat or Green, would have been politically able to do so.
Maybe they would have rejected the memorial, but they wouldn’t have done so in such a crass manner.
Many Pit OPs (from all walks of life) start out that way and then get refined with some backpedalling. Mr. Moto’s OP isn’t the first, nor the last of this type of broadbrush OPs. And as usual, the dogpile I see here was just as predictable. If anything, Mr. Moto was taught by his brethren of Dopers, not the military. We have all been guilty of it from one time to another.
It would be interesting if that is what he did. His claim is that since these are elected representatives that he is perfectly within reason to extend the vote of the eight individuals to the city in general. Of course that is not the same as saying every person in San Fransisco has the same views, but these are their elected representatives and you gotta dance with who brought ya.
This could be an interesting GD on it’s own, are the actions of elected representatives reflective of the population that elected them?
Touche’
It’s not hypothetical. Mr. Moto loves to complain. He especially loves to complain about Democrates. He will be complaining about something else next week with the same fire and vinegar as this ‘outrage’ and the week after that it will be something else that is just the worst behavior ever.
Which, I will point out, is VERY different from, say, the WWII memorial or Vietnam Wall in DC, which honor the service of the fallen WITHOUT doing any of those other things, which are in some ways very similar to Navy recruitment.
Most liberals on the board seem to agree that it was an incorrect decision. Including, I might point out, me. The question is whether it was an incorrect decision that shows that reasonable people can disagree about the priorities of current political protest vs. commemoration of the past, or whether it was an incorrect decision that, to quote you, “[puts] the lie to the assertion that all liberals respect military service”, one that is outrageous and insulting and deserves profanity and disgust. (That “putting the lie” line of yours was double plus un-honest, by the way, as (1) there never WAS such an assertion, and (2) nothing that happened at ALL demonstrates a lack of respect for military service. At the very reaches of logic twisting, it might demonstrate a COMPARITIVE lack of repsect for military service when compared to other priorities, but that’s a lot different than actual DISrespect for military service.)
I don’t understand why you think the present is totally out of bounds when discussing how to commemorate the past. I think that’s something that each individual city or town or whatever has to decide for itself, and while I disagree with SF’s decision, I don’t view it as the degenerate example of literal elite gay anti-American puppy-hating that you seem to think it is. Although I’m sure it will be portrayed thusly by many a right wing media outlet 
But, as I mentioned to Mr Moto, there’s a BIG difference between “this is a monument honoring those who died, and those who gave so much to keep the world free” and “this is a frickin’ AWESOME ship with HUGE guns and flags all over it, and little displays about all the heroic things it did, and yvan eht nioj, and it’s going to dominate a section of the San Francisco skyline forever”.